A.M. No. MTJ-93-811. March 1, 1995. ALICIA T. KAW, complainant, vs. JUDGE CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION JR., MeTC, Branch 2, Manila, and SHERIFF SAMUEL A. ARIBUABO, Sheriff III, MeTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, respondents.
FACTS

Complainant Alicia T. Kaw charged Judge Casiano P. Anunciacion, Jr. and Sheriff Samuel A. Aribuabo with grave misconduct, incompetence, and partiality. The charges arose from an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 132227-CV) filed by Italy Marketing Corporation (IMC) against complainant’s husband, George Kaw. Respondent judge rendered a decision ordering the Kaws to vacate the leased premises and pay monthly rentals. The Kaws received the decision on June 7, 1990. The following day, June 8, 1990, respondent sheriff served the writ of execution and immediately evicted them, levying upon and selling their business tools and equipment at auction. Complainant alleged the writ was improperly and prematurely issued, as the MeTC decision was still appealable. She also claimed the judge unilaterally fixed a low rental amount to keep the case under the Rule on Summary Procedure and that the sheriff was not authorized to enforce the writ.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Anunciacion and Sheriff Aribuabo are administratively liable for their actions in the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court found respondent judge guilty of grave misconduct for authorizing a special deputy sheriff at the instance of the winning party, IMC. Administrative Circular No. 12-90 explicitly prohibits a judge from appointing a special deputy sheriff upon the application of a party-litigant unless the regular deputy sheriff is absent or on leave. By allowing IMC to effectively choose the executing officer, the judge committed an irregularity that undermined the integrity of the judicial process.
Respondent sheriff, Samuel A. Aribuabo, was found guilty of grave misconduct for his manner of enforcing the writ. He violated the established rule that a defendant must be given a reasonable period, normally three to five days from notice of the writ, to comply before bodily eviction. He executed the writ on the very day it was issued. Furthermore, he levied upon and sold tools and implements of the Kaws’ bakery business, which are expressly exempt from execution under Rule 39, Section 12(b) of the Rules of Court. His actions demonstrated gross ignorance of basic procedural rules. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) on each respondent with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.